Bruno Schulz and his 1926 Article: “Regarding the Problem of Determining Hereditary Prognosis. The Affliction Prospects for Nephews and Nieces of Schizophrenics”
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Authored by one of Rüdin's most productive colleagues, Bruno Schulz, the main goal of this article was to estimate risk for dementia praecox (DP) in nieces/nephews (n/n) of DP probands to address practical questions for genetic counseling. Schulz selected 76 primary probands from records of the genealogical department of the German Research Institute of Psychiatry who both had DP and had siblings-secondary probands-with children aged 20 years or greater. Those children had a morbid risk for DP of 1.4%, much lower than that found in the offspring of DP in Hoffmann's study. However, the secondary probands had much lower rates of DP than the unselected siblings of DP cases studied by Rüdin. So rates of DP in n/n of DP probands are likely lower than expected theoretically because the secondary probands are being indirectly selected for a lowered genetic risk for DP by having successfully reproduced. Schulz diagnosed eccentric and other disordered personalities in the secondary probands and their spouses and presented evidence that other disordered personalities but especially eccentric personalities in parents were related to the risk of both eccentricity and DP in their children, the n/n of the DP probands. Eugenic issues play a minor role in this article. Although generally supportive of eugenic goals, historical sources document that Schulz was opposed to the National Socialists and actively attempted to protect Jews and his patients from involuntary sterilization. This complicates attempts to judge the morality of the work of the Rüdin school as a single unit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it